coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Golubinci, Serbia.
5.  On 14 March 1988 the applicant brought a civil action against his then employer in the Zagreb Basic Court of Associated Labour (Osnovni sud udruženog rada u Zagrebu), seeking damages in connection with an employment-related accident. The case was later on transferred to the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu).
6.  On 29 May 2006 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) complaining about the length of the above civil proceedings.
7.  On 14 March 2007 the Zagreb Municipal Court orally pronounced its ruling as to the applicant’s civil claim and awarded him compensation for the employment-related accident. At this moment in time, however, the applicant did not receive a written copy of the judgment ( see paragraph 12 below).
8.  On 25 April 2007 the Zagreb County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded him compensation in the amount of 6,500 Croatian kuna (HRK), and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to decide the case as quickly as possible but in any case within six months.
9.  On 21 May 2007 the applicant appealed against the Zagreb County Court decision, contesting the amount of compensation awarded, the six-month time-limit and the dismissal of his claim for the costs of proceedings.
10.  On 4 October 2007 the applicant’s appeal was forwarded to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).
11.  On 11 January 2008 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint as he did not receive the Municipal Court decision within six months as ordered by the County Court. In a letter of 23 January 2008 the Constitutional Court notified the applicant that it was not competent to supervise the implementation of the higher court’s decisions ordering lower courts to decide a case within a certain time-limit.
12.  The written copy of the Zagreb Municipal Court’s judgment of 14 March 2007 (see paragraph 7 above) was served on the applicant’s counsel on 22 February 2008. In the meantime, on 14 January 2008 the defendant had lodged an appeal against the first instance judgment with the Zagreb County Court.
13.  On 30 June 2008 the Supreme Court accepted the applicant’s appeal of 21 May 2007 against the County Court’s decision of 25 April 2007, concerning the length of proceedings and awarded him an additional amount of HRK 6,500 in compensation.
14.  On 13 January 2009 the County Court partly upheld the first instance judgment of 14 March 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Łódź.
5.  On 27 July 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for payment against the Łódź Municipality.
6.  On 8 April 1998 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) gave judgment. The court partly allowed the applicant’s claim. The defendant appealed.
7.  On 28 September 1998 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.
8.  On 11 August 2005 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s claim against the Łódź Municipality. The applicant appealed.
9.  On 22 March 2006 the Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the appellate court’s judgment.
10.  On 12 January 2007 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain her cassation appeal.
11.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged with the Łódź Court of Appeal a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
12.  On 16 September 2005 the Łódź Court of Appeal acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the Łódź Regional Court finding that there had been several periods of unjustified inactivity for which the Łódź Regional Court had been responsible. It referred to the periods between 29 January and 16 April 2004, 24 June and 27 October 2004, 12 January and 18 May 2005 and qualified them as unjustified delays. The court did not examine, however, the period prior to the entry into force of the 2004 Act.
13.  The court awarded the applicant 1,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 285 euros (EUR)) in just satisfaction.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 3 September 2001 an arrest warrant was issued by the Izmir Criminal Court in respect of the applicant due to his alleged involvement in fraud and the forgery of identity cards.
6.  On 13 August 2001 the Izmir Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant with these offences under Article 350 (1), (2) and (3) of the former Criminal Code.
7.  On 12 October 2001 the Bakırköy Magistrates' Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand in accordance with the arrest warrant.
8.  On 10 December 2001 the Izmir Criminal Court issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction and referred the case to the Izmir Assize Court.
9.  On 11 December 2001 the applicant was heard by the Bakırköy Magistrates' Court upon the instruction of the Izmir Criminal Court. The applicant pleaded not guilty and requested his release.
10.  Between 19 December 2001 and 3 February 2003, the first-instance court postponed nine hearings since the applicant, who was detained in the Metris Prison, was not brought before it as he could not be transferred to the Buca Prison in Izmir.
11.  Between 19 December 2001 and 7 July 2003, the Izmir Assize Court examined the applicant's continued detention at the end of every hearing, either of its own motion or upon the applicant's requests. On each occasion, the court ordered the applicant's continued detention, having regard to the state of the evidence and nature of the offence.  On 7 July 2003 the court ordered the applicant's release.
12.  On 8 November 2004 the applicant was acquitted for lack of evidence.
13.  On 10 February 2005 the applicant brought an action before the Bakırköy Assize Court requesting compensation for his unjustified detention.
14.  On 8 October 2007, the Bakırköy Assize Court partially granted the applicant's compensation claim.
15.  On 20 November 2008 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 8 October 2007.
16.  According to the information in the case file, the compensation proceedings are currently pending before the first instance court.
5.  The Christian Democratic People’s Party (“the CDPP”) is a political party in the Republic of Moldova which was represented in Parliament and was in opposition at the time of the events.
6.  On 3 December 2003 the applicant party applied to the Chişinău Municipal Council for an authorisation to hold a protest demonstration in the Square of the Great National Assembly, in front of the Government’s building, on 25 January 2004. According to the application, the organisers intended to express views on the functioning of the democratic institutions in Moldova, the respect for human rights and the Moldo-Russian conflict in Transdniestria.
7.  On 20 January 2004 the Chişinău Municipal Council rejected the applicant party’s request on the ground that “it had convincing evidence of the fact that during the meeting, there will be calls to a war of agression, ethnic hatred and public violence”.
8.  The applicant party challenged the refusal in court and argued, inter alia, that the reasons relied upon by the Municipal Council were entirely baseless.
9.  On 23 January 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant party’s action. The court found that the Municipal Council’s refusal to authorise the CDPP’s demonstration was justified because the leaflets disseminated by it contained such slogans as “Down with Voronin’s totalitarian regime” and “Down with Putin’s occupation regime”. According to the Court of Appeal, these slogans constituted a call to a violent overthrow of the constitutional regime and to hatred towards the Russian people. In this context, the court recalled that during a previous demonstration organised by the applicant party to protest against the presence of the Russian military in Transdniestria, the protesters burned a picture of the President of the Russian Federation and a Russian flag.
10.  The applicant party appealed against the above decision arguing, inter alia, that the impugned slogans could not have reasonably been interpreted as a call to a violent overthrow of the Government or as a call to ethnic hatred and that the refusal to authorise the meeting constituted a breach of its rights guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.
11.  On 21 April 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant party’s appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Ankara.
5.  On 15 January 1977 the applicant bought seven plots of land in the Bozcaada region of Çanakkale from a private person by way of a bill of sale.
6.  On an unspecified date, a land registry survey was carried out in the region, as a result of which the plots in question were registered in the name of the Treasury.
7.  On 21 August 1991 the applicant raised an objection before the Bozcaada Cadastral Court against the land registry survey and requested its annulment.
8.  The first hearing was held on 5 November 1991. The applicant did not attend the hearings held between 16 June 1992 and 17 November 1998. Moreover, the hearings were adjourned between 16 June 1992 and 22 February 1994 pending the determination of the applicant's address by the Treasury.
9.  At the hearing held on 3 May 1994 the Bozcaada Cadastral Court ordered an on-site inspection of the plots in question. However, the official notice for the payment of the inspection fee was only served on the applicant on 21 July 1998, and the inspection was conducted on 4 September 2000.
10.  On 29 March 2002 the Bozcaada Cadastral Court partially granted the applicant's request in relation to three of the plots in question. The court held that there was no record of ownership in the land register in respect of these three plots and the applicant had therefore acquired title to them by way of adverse possession. The remaining four plots, however, were registered in the Treasury's name in the land register and could not, therefore, have changed ownership by way of adverse possession. The bill of sale executed in 1977 to convey the title of the disputed land was also void for the same reason. Moreover, even if the Treasury had held no valid title to the plots in question, the conditions for adverse possession of unregistered land had not been fulfilled by the applicant in the instant case. The applicant, therefore, could not claim title to them. In reaching its decision the Bozcaada Cadastral Court relied on a number of sources, including on‑site inspection reports, statements from witnesses and local experts, title deeds, tax records, bills of sale, sketch plans and agricultural and technical expert reports.
11.  After holding a hearing on the merits of the case, on 4 February 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Bozcaada Cadastral Court. On 18 June 2003 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant's rectification request. This decision was served on the applicant on 11 July 2003.
5.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Nowe Brzesko.
6.  In March 1940 the applicant was deported to Germany where he was subjected to forced labour on three different farms until the end of the Second World War. He worked on the same farm as M.P., his future wife. On 30 April 1945 their daughter was born in Germany. After the end of the war they all returned to Poland. They registered their daughter as having been born in Poland on 13 May 1945, for fear of negative consequences had they revealed that she was born in Germany.
7.  On 9 June 2001 the applicant applied to the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation (“the Foundation”) for compensation on account of his forced labour during the war. That request was made under the scheme for slave and forced labourers (“the second compensation scheme”) established under the Joint Statement of 17 July 2000, the German Law of 2 August 2000 on the Creation of the “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future” Foundation (“the German Foundation Act”) and the subsequent Agreement of 16 February 2001 between the Remembrance, Responsibility and Future Foundation (“the German Foundation”) and the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation.
8.  It appears that on 1 July 2004 the Foundation’s Verification Commission found that the applicant was eligible for benefits, as his persecution fell under the 4th category, which included persons who had been deported to Germany and subjected to forced labour in agriculture. It consequently awarded him the sum of EUR 1,124.84. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.
9.  On an unspecified date the husband of the applicant’s daughter applied to the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation for compensation on account of her birth at a time when her parents had been forced labourers in Germany. That request was made under the second compensation scheme. On 28 August 2003 the Foundation’s Verification Commission refused the request by the applicant’s daughter. The applicant appealed against that refusal. He relied on a number of statements provided by his fellow forced labourers. On 23 July 2004 the Foundation’s Appeal Commission upheld the refusal. The applicant was informed that during the negotiations in the framework of the so-called “openness clause” it was agreed that children born to parents deported to Germany and subjected to forced labour there were eligible for benefits. However, according to the documents in the file, including his daughter’s identity card, she had been born on 13 May 1945 in Poland. Furthermore, there were no other documents in the file to confirm the applicant’s assertion that his daughter had been born in Germany and had returned with her parents to Poland.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the village of Rosen.
5.  In 1992 the applicant was acting as a liquidator of an agricultural co‑operative.
6.  On an unspecified date in 1993 a preliminary inquiry was opened against him by the police in Pazardzhik. It concerned his alleged mismanagement of property of the co-operative between April and December 1992. On 2 February 1993 the police confiscated the applicant's passport. In April 1993 and in the beginning of June 1993 he was questioned.
7.  On 29 June 1994 the Pazardzhik regional public prosecutor's office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for mismanaging the assets of the co-operative thus causing it substantial pecuniary damage.
8.  On an unspecified date in 1994 the investigator to whom the case had been assigned imposed a prohibition on the applicant's leaving the country.
9.  No investigative steps were taken after the opening of the criminal proceedings and the applicant was never formally charged or indicted.
10.  On at least thirteen occasions between 26 September 1994 and 5 November 2003, pursuant to oral requests by the applicant to terminate the proceedings and lift the travel ban, the Pazardzhik regional public prosecutor's office sent letters to the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service with instructions to close, and forward to it, the applicant's case file. Apparently, those instructions were not complied with.
11.  On 2 July 2004 the Pazardzhik regional public prosecutor's office terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant, finding that the limitation period for the prosecution of the respective offence had expired in 1997.
12.  On 11 November 2004 the police lifted the travel ban imposed on the applicant (see paragraph 8 above).
5.  The applicant is a company with its registered office in Viničné.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 23 March 1998 the applicant lodged an action with the Rožňava District Court concerning the payment of a sum of money.
8.  On 30 March 1998 the case was transferred to the Košice Regional Court.
9.  On 26 November 2000 the Regional Court granted the action.
10.  On 26 January 2001 the defendant appealed.
11.  On 28 February 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the decision and returned the case to the Regional Court.
12.  On 15 May 2003 the Regional Court dismissed the action.
13.  On 23 June 2003 the applicant appealed.
14.  On 26 October 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the decision and returned the case to the Regional Court.
15.  On 14 March 2005 the Regional Court granted the action.
16.  On 17 May 2005 the defendant appealed.
17.  On 19 May 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the overall length of the proceedings in its action.
18.  On 21 September 2005 the Constitutional Court dismissed a part of the applicant’s complaint concerning the delays in the proceedings before the Supreme Court as being belated. It stated that in relation to the appeal proceedings the applicant had failed to lodge the complaint within the statutory 2 months’ period as the Supreme Court’s decisions had become final on 24 April 2002 and 27 December 2004.
19.  On 10 October 2005 the case was transferred to the Supreme Court.
20.  On 9 November 2005 the Supreme Court returned the case to the Regional Court without a decision on the merits.
21.  On 11 January 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Regional Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay.
22.  It ordered the Regional Court to proceed without delay and awarded 30,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK), (the equivalent of 800 euros (EUR) at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the Regional Court to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs.
23.  On 6 September 2007 the Supreme Court partly upheld the Regional Court’s decision of 14 March 2005 and on 28 September 2007 it returned the case for a decision on the matter of costs and expenses to the Regional Court.
24.  On 20 February 2008 the Regional Court requested the applicant’s legal representative to submit all necessary documents.
25.  On 16 April 2008 the Regional Court imposed a fine on the applicant’s legal representative.
26.  On 12 May 2008 the applicant’s legal representative specified the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses.
27.  On 12 June 2008 the Regional Court quashed the decision imposing a fine on the applicant’s legal representative.
28.  On 5 November 2008 the Regional Court issued a decision on costs and expenses. The decision became final on 29 November 2008.
4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Bucharest.
5.  The applicant inherited a 300 sq. m plot of land situated in Eforie Sud at 11 Vlad Ţepeş Street.
6.  On 13 February 2001 the applicant brought civil proceedings to have removed an electrical transformer which occupied 25 sq. m of her land or to be allocated land in the neighbouring plot. She submitted that her intent was to build a house, but she had not obtained an authorisation to build on that land because of that transformer.
7.  On 18 March 2002 the Constanţa District Court, considering that the applicant was prevented from enjoying the prerogatives conferred by her right of property, ordered the local administrative authorities to give her in compensation a plot of land with the same area and characteristics as her land. That judgment became final.
8.  On 22 April 2003 the Constanţa District Court, at the applicant’s request, ordered the local administrative authorities to pay a pecuniary penalty for each day’s delay in enforcement of that judgment.
9.  On 15 December 2003 the local council decided to compensate the applicant with land in another location than the plot adjacent to her land. The applicant sought annulment of that decision and on 19 May 2005 the Constanţa County Court allowed her action, considering that the land offered to the applicant was not equivalent to her land. Therefore it ordered the local administrative authorities to allocate the applicant another plot of 300 sq. m of land with the same characteristics as her land, as provided by the judgment of 18 March 2002. That judgment became final.
10.  On 30 November 2005, at the applicant’s request, the Constanţa District Court, by an interlocutory decision, declared that the judgment of 19 May 2005 could be enforced. On 22 December 2005 the bailiff ordered the local administrative authorities to issue a new decision allowing the applicant to take possession of 300 sq. m of land as provided by the judgment of 18 March 2002.
11.  On 17 March 2006 the local council decided to draw up evaluation reports in respect of the applicant’s land and of a plot of 676.67 sq. m in a different location. The applicant declined that offer, considering that the land proposed had not the same characteristics as her land.
12.  On 10 April 2006 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the mayor alleging abuse of authority and non-compliance with court decisions. On 18 April 2007 she requested the prosecutor to inform her about the solution. On 21 February 2008 the Government informed the Court that the proceedings were still pending.
13.  On 8 August 2006 the town council decided to draw up evaluation reports in respect of the applicant’s land and of the same area of land in the neighbouring plot.
14.  In 2008 the local administrative authorities informed the applicant that they would compensate her with land from the plot adjacent to her land.
15.  By a decision of 31 July 2009 the town council ordered compensation with land from the neighbouring plot. The applicant agreed with that decision.
16.  So far the applicant has not received an ownership title for the land allocated in compensation.
4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Novoaltaysk.
5.  On 3 July 2003 the Industrialniy District Court of Barnaul granted, in part, claims brought by a certain Z. against the applicant and, inter alia, recognised his title to a share in a flat owned by the applicant.
6.  On 13 August 2003 the Altai Regional Court quashed the judgment of 3 July 2003 on the applicant's appeal and dismissed Z.'s claims. This appeal judgment became final and binding.
7.  On 9 February 2004 the applicant sold the flat to a third person, S.
8.  On 27 July 2004 Z. lodged an application for supervisory review of the case.
9.  On 5 November 2004 a judge of the Altai Regional Court sent the case to its Presidium for consideration by way of supervisory review.
10.  On 7 December 2004 the Presidium of the Altai Regional Court reassessed the evidence, quashed the appeal judgment of 13 August 2003 and upheld the judgment of 3 July 2003, granting Z.'s claims in part.
11.  According to the applicant, neither she nor her lawyer attended the hearing due to the authorities' failure to notify them of its date and time.